free counter with statistics Children of Men | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

cm2.jpg
Eschaton, Anyone?

Children of Men / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | January 17, 2007 | Comments (87)


Of the trio of Mexican directors currently creating some of the best Hollywood films in years, Alfonso Cuarón is the hardest to pin down. Guillermo del Toro is the jolly pulp king, alternating comic-book movies like Hellboy with eerie thrillers (The Devil’s Backbone) and adult fairy tales (Pan’s Labyrinth), while Alejandro González Iñárritu is the most self-consciously serious (21 Grams, Babel). But Cuarón won’t stay still enough to be defined, with films ranging from the sexual coming-of-age Y Tu Mamá También to a variety of literary adaptations, including the feel-good A Little Princess to the less feel-good Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. If anything, his growing body of work shows a man increasingly comfortable with the darker side of humanity, and his latest film, Children of Men, is his most stirring to date. People throw around the word “dystopia” far too often, but Cuarón’s film gives the term new life in gritty and terrifying ways, as he sketches a dark future of unsettling plausibility. But what sets his vision apart from the rest, and what truly informs its sense of evil, is a persistent presence of hope and compassion flowing forth from a people who have otherwise descended into barbarism. He uses darkness to enhance the light.

Set in London in 2027, Children of Men opens with the world on the edge of willing apocalypse. Women, for no known reason, have been infertile for 20 years, and human society, faced with inevitable demise and no way to continue its existence, is sliding into greater chaos by the day. The first sequence is stunning both for its content and Cuarón’s masterful ability to convey the depths of the story through visual details, eliminating exposition and creating the feeling of a genuine world: Theo (Clive Owen) stops in for a cup of coffee at a local café, where customers are glued to TV screens broadcasting news of the death of Baby Diego, who, at 18 years old, was the youngest person on the planet. The cloying tribute music in the newsfeed is a reminder of the way society deifies its popular victims, right down to the “Baby” in front of the man’s name. Theo gets his coffee and leaves, and is only a few yards away when the entire café explodes from a terrorist bomb. But the destruction is just a part of life in dying London: The streets are lined with trash and beggars, and government propaganda encouraging citizens to report illegal immigrants is defaced with graffiti like “Last one to die, please turn out the light.” That the government has turned into Big Brother comes across just a little heavy-handed, but Cuarón makes it work, right down to the buses labeled “Homeland Security” that regularly round up refugees and ship them to camps so that Britain might blindly soldier on, maintaining a semblance of sanity. It’s far-fetched, only not really.

Theo is soon kidnapped by a few members of the terrorist group known as the Fishes (they use the Ichthys as a marker), which turns out to be headed by Julian (Julianne Moore), his estranged wife. She wants him to help arrange transfer papers for Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey), a ‘fugee looking to escape the country without being arrested. Theo agrees, and winds up inadvertently joining the cause to escort Kee to safety because of her secret: Somehow, she’s become pregnant. No one knows why, least of all Kee, who said she’d never seen a pregnant woman before her own belly began to grow. But she’s carrying what could be the miracle that unlocks the survival of the human race, and the film becomes a protracted chase scene as Theo and Kee make their way with Julian and her lieutenant, Luke (Chiwetel Ejiofor), through the countryside to the coast.

But to reduce it to a chase movie robs the film of its skill and power. Cuarón keeps the tension high throughout the film by allowing the realistic story to drive the action, not the artificial music stings or blurred cuts that are the hallmark of the genre. When Theo and Kee attempt an escape from a farmhouse, Cuarón eschews music and instead focuses on the shouts of the encroaching enemy and Theo’s grunting efforts to jumpstart an old car. Everything about the sequence feels urgent because of its recognizable reality, thanks also in part to Cuarón’s preference for in-camera effects mixed with delicate touches of computer-enhanced images. There are no jetpacks here, simply a lived-in, beat-up, decaying world that’s decorated with touches of technology to lend it a vivid texture. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, who also worked with Cuarón on Y Tu Mamá También, uses natural light and shadow to astonishing effect, smearing the London streets with a gray to match the skies; an extended battle sequence toward the end unfolds in one glorious take that feels more real than any war movie in recent memory. The feeling of almost-us is heightened by the use of an eclectic soundtrack including a cover of “Ruby Tuesday” performed by Franco Battiato that’s creepier each time it’s used.

Based on P.D. James’ novel, the film is a dazzling balancing act: humorous but not comical, chaotic but not mindless, bleak but not defeatist. Owen cements his leading-man status by bringing a sense of gallows humor to his antihero, along with a British combination of anger and bemusement and drive. The rest of the cast is equally powerful, especially Ejiofor’s complex Luke, who hopes to act as a latter-day prophet and disciple for the coming child. Michael Caine provides a tempered comic relief as an aging hippie who deals pot to local cops, and Danny Huston manages to bring depth to a character who only appears for a few minutes.

Perhaps the most compelling aspect of the film is Cuarón’s somewhat hopeful outlook. This year’s other big movie set in a dark vision of future London was V for Vendetta, which traded on grand but empty statements in an exhortation to protect your personal freedom at all costs, even if it involves detonating major monuments while listening to classical music. But Children of Men is infinitely braver because Theo, despite all his world has become, still believes in a person’s basic decency and the possibility of a just government. Luke counsels Kee to stay hidden, but Theo thinks she should go public with her pregnancy to receive medical care; when Luke says that the government will take Kee’s baby because she’s a refugee, Theo disagrees. His compassion, his willingness to forgive a ruling body that’s slowly tearing itself apart, speaks to his, and Cuarón’s, belief that darkness always brings a dawn. Theo’s compassion only means something because of its severity; he knows the evil men are capable of, and despite that — because of it — he holds out hope. Children of Men presents a frighteningly possible future of our world, and Cuarón knows we don’t have to let it come to pass.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Pan's Labyrinth | The Most Discussed Pajiba Posts of 2006



Comments

Great review. This is the movie I've been waiting for since I saw Cuaron speak at Comic-Con.

Nitpick: "letter-day prophet"

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at December 25, 2006 8:35 PM

I saw this movie two months ago when it came out here in Australia, and it was easily one of the best movies I've seen in ages. It's the kind of movie that haunts you for days afterwards, and I really want to see it again. I highly recommend it.

Posted by: wildsoda at December 25, 2006 10:01 PM

Excuse me, Flo. What's the eschaton du jour?
It's the eschtaton of the day.
Mmm, that sounds good, I'll have that.
(I like your words. Your beat is nice).

Wait, isn't Ruby Tuesday about a girl's first period? That IS creepy. And so postmodern. Only not really. Jeez, I could go for a Hot Pocket right now.

Posted by: Double-good Yeah Uh-huh Alright at December 25, 2006 10:51 PM

When my best friend and I saw the trailer in theatres, I was kind of "meh", but then came the kicker.

"From the director of 'Y Tu Mama Tambien'..."

".. and 'Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban'.."

I don't know why, but the two of us could not stop laughing. (It amused me greater to know I loved one and despised the other of the two movies)

But now I kind of want to see this... And yes, eventually, V for Vendetta. Sigh.

Posted by: Mara at December 26, 2006 4:09 AM

I saw it some months ago (Continental Europe), and I found it brilliant.

This review, makes me remember the funny bits (the thing with the cloak, Peter Mullan's "sad" face), as well as the questions posed.

The (loss of) fertility wasn't the main theme for me though, the refugee's fate grabbed me more. I can't escape the feeling that Western civlization is not far from shielding itself entirely off from the "outsiders". The situation depicted in the movie isn't that far off, earlier than 2027.

Final note: Couldn't understand why the USA premiered this film in the holiday season. But it is essentially a Christmas movie: waiting for the birth of a saviour (for all the good the last one has done us...)

Posted by: Jeff K at December 26, 2006 5:53 AM

I had been so, SO hoping this movie would be good. Clive Owen and Julianne Moore and Chiwetel Ejiofor directed by Cuaron; drool drool...

From this review and others, it sounds to me like they've hit it out of the park.

About fucking time a decent movie hit the theaters, isn't it?

Posted by: Jerce at December 26, 2006 7:32 AM

If any of you have the chance, read P.D. James' book of the same name. It's the only one she's written that isn't a mystery novel, but it's fantastic nonetheless - probably one of Britain's most underrated literary writers. I can't wait to see the film!

Posted by: sarah at December 26, 2006 10:29 AM

I really like Cuaron, and I hope that Children of Men is as good as the review states. I will also defend ...Prisoner of Azkaban. That said, something about Jerce's post really got up my nose. No decent movies until now? Where do you live? Where do you see films? There have been many excellent movies this year, both large and small. I know that standards are important, but the attitude that everything is shit, especially anything that the hoi polloi might enjoy, really grates on me. Is this a good movie? I hope so. But don't try and promote it by trashing everything else.

Posted by: apocalipstick at December 26, 2006 12:11 PM

I feel compelled to respond to apocalipstick because, frankly, that is jsut one COOL fucking handle.

I watch a lot of films, but this entire year I have not felt compelled to leave my home to see a new film in theaters (although 'Casino Royale' looks like a renter). Movie-wise, 2006 has pretty much just sucked.

And what's with that "hoi polloi" crack? Where did you get the notion that I am some kind of film snob? I loves me some popcorn fare--but the studios seem to have forgotten how to make good ones. I'd kill to see a decent shit-gettin-blowed-up-real-good movie. (I have guarded hopes for 'Die Hard 4'). I can't wait to see 'Grindhouse' so don't you be prejudgin'.

In closing, I disagree that "There have been many excellent movies this year, both large and small." I can count the number of decent-looking films from 2006 on one hand, and still have enough fingers left to shoot Hollywood the bird.

Posted by: Jerce at December 26, 2006 3:39 PM

Hoi polloi actually means "the common people", but it has been completely misused for years. I only found this out myself recently.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Arran at December 26, 2006 5:03 PM

Jerce,

There may have been few movies you enjoyed or wanted to go outside to see, but that's a very different thing than saying "none of them were any good." Few good movies in 2006? How about Heart of the Game? The Proposition? Did you see Brick?

You like "a decent shit-gettin-blowed-up-real-good movie"? Check out Crank. Ridiculous, but potent popcorn fare. A worthy edition to the Jason Statham ouevre.

(Is it wrong to refer to a Statham ouevre?)

See District B-13. That's supercharged action. Casino Royale is an excellent movie, perhaps the best Bond ever.

Thank You for Smoking and Tristram Shandy were good comedies. Not perfect, but good. And that's not nearly everything on the list.

Grindhouse is no proof of the common touch. Tarantino and Rodriguez are now the touchstones of the middle-brow film snob.

Posted by: apocalipstick at December 26, 2006 5:52 PM

Finally, a movie I will consider seeing. FINALLY!

Posted by: Rachel at December 26, 2006 8:07 PM

Crank...Heart of the Game...The Proposition...District B-13...Thank You for Smoking...

You are very young, aren't you? Or are you being sarcastic? It can be difficult to tell, with text.

I still think your handle is extremely cool.

Posted by: Jerce at December 26, 2006 8:29 PM

I forgot to add: Yes, Brick was good; more for the performances, though, than for the script.

Posted by: Jerce at December 26, 2006 8:31 PM

(Is it wrong to refer to a Statham ouevre?)

Hell no! I love him. Half-naked, preferably. I'll watch just about anything with him in it. As long as he takes his shirt off. Does he take his shirt off in Crank?

Tarantino and Rodriguez are now the touchstones of the middle-brow film snob.
It's probably quite strange of me to prefer Robert Rodriguez to Quentin Tarantino - film wise, that is. I do, though. Can't help it.

Posted by: Daphne at December 26, 2006 9:54 PM

Jerce,

No, I'm verging on AARP territory. Again, if you didn't like a bunch of films, that's your right. It's the "I didn't want to see them so they must be crap" position that grates on me. Did you see District B-13? Don't say that you like well-done, mindless action and then dis that film.

Daphne,

Statham's in a hospital gown in Crank.

Posted by: apocalipstick at December 27, 2006 12:23 AM

The following article does a pretty good job of expressing my (and others') frustration with this year's crop o' crap:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/bottom2006.php

Posted by: Jerce at December 27, 2006 7:28 AM

"Statham's in a hospital gown in Crank."

Niiiiiice. I've always enjoyed a Statham view from the back. That's gotta be out on DVD soon, right?

Posted by: em at December 27, 2006 10:40 AM

Daphne, I'm right there with you. About Rodriguez, that is. I don't much care for Jason Statham's rump. Partially it's because, while I like some of his films, Tarantino himself is incredibly annoying. Rodriguez really is something of a renegade director, so even when he fails (Once Upon a Time in Mexico, anyone?), I give him some credit.

Back on topic - I've seen most of Cuaron's work, and given my love for Clive Owen and Julianne Moore (you're forgiven for The Forgotten, but don't let it happen again. I'm watching you, Jules.), I'll definitely catch this.

Jerce, while I enjoy your posts most of the time, some of your last ones were incredibly condescending. Just saying is all.

And finally, let this be the last time I ever use the phrase "Jason Statham's rump".

Posted by: TK at December 27, 2006 11:52 AM

Saw this one yesterday in DC. I am still processing it. Wow.
Of the three Mexican directors listed above Cuaron is definitely the best. For those of us who appreciate good camera work, he is among the best working today. The cinematography in this film, and all of his films, has been excellent. Del Toro is also great, just not as much. Inarritu's movies are crap, high-brow crap, but crap.
I'll even give Cuaron props for Azkhaban. I'm a father, so it was an obligation that I see all the HP movies. Imo that movie was the exact point where that series stopped being merely a highly-budgeted series for kiddies. Honestly, I was bummed that he bailed on doing any sequels, but now that I see what he chose to do instead, I am grateful.

Posted by: imk at December 27, 2006 1:12 PM

As per Netflix, Crank will be out January 9th. Just 2 DVD release dates away (DVDs and CDs come out on Tuesdays)

Posted by: Brian at December 27, 2006 3:09 PM

@IMK, Cuaron has mentioned in a few interviews that he'd like to direct the 7th film. I'd like to see him do the last two, myself. Nobody could handle the Big Death of book 6 like him.

Posted by: Jenna at December 27, 2006 3:24 PM

Jerce - I like how they listed a paragraph worth of crap that doesn't even warrant discussion before going through they're worst of

Posted by: Brian at December 27, 2006 3:40 PM

if i didn't know better, i'd think i was moonlighting here as jerce, because i completely agree with... him? her? the thing about the 'good' movies this year is that i suspect they're good primarily because most of what's around them is utter tripe.

i saw brick. i enjoyed it. but what i have difficulty distinguishing is whether it was THAT good, or if it was more like "finally, a movie that doesn't completely fucking suck!"

i tried watching thank you for smoking. twice. i couldn't get through it, but then, i'm a reluctant and ashamed smoker, so i suspect i wasn't the target audience.

i enjoyed the breakup - panned here and everywhere, i think the reviewers across the intarwebz missed the point of that film entirely. i think watching it and reviewing it as a romcom when that's the LAST thing it was pretty much ensured horrid press, and that's okay; i'm just saying, i enjoyed it. it's exactly the sort of thing i would normally loathe, but i liked it. the opening fight scene was one of the most realistic i've ever seen committed to film.

ANYWAY, it's a sad state of affairs when one movie i liked was critically decimated and the other was good possibly only because everything else sucks, and when all the films everyone had hard-ons over this year left me fucking yawning.

not every movie has to be brilliant, but they DO have to be entertaining, and i think that's where hollywood is consistently missing the mark.

i'm sure there were some great films out there that i missed, but the thing is, you shouldn't have to sit through ten horrible films to get to ONE good one, and you shouldn't have to lower your standards in order to convince yourself that the first ten weren't just as shitty as you know they were.

it's kind of like how the 'average women in america is a size 12', so we all sort of accept it, because it's become the norm and what can you do?

the fact is, america is fat.

and hollywood continues to churn out tripe.

Posted by: juliagulia at December 27, 2006 5:57 PM

that should've been woman, not women, there at the end. i hate when that happens, don't you?

Posted by: juliagulia at December 27, 2006 6:00 PM

will you guys be reviewing "The Painted Veil", or "Black Christmas"? just asking...

Posted by: just asking at December 27, 2006 8:26 PM

What juliagulia said. Except about the fat stuff. She sort of lost me there at the end. But all the rest of it, yeah. It's rare that a movie comes out that is even worth going to see, IMO.

Posted by: Kathy at December 27, 2006 10:31 PM

I wonder if Children of Men will ever find its way to the Philippines. I may have to go to find this on pirated DVD (forgive me, Alfonso) to watch it. Damn you, Daniel! Now I desperately need to watch this film.

"Imo that movie was the exact point where that series stopped being merely a highly-budgeted series for kiddies."
I completely agree with you! That was the first Harry Potter movie where my kid cousin didn't feel talked down to; the Chris Columbus ones were frankly patronizing.

Posted by: tala at December 28, 2006 5:36 AM

How about Little Miss Sunshine, The Departed, or Borat? I loved all three of these movies and happily shelled out $10 to see them in theater.

Posted by: yogalates at December 28, 2006 3:03 PM

See, juliagulia, you like a movie that, in many opinions, was utter tripe. Was it? You say, "You shouldn't have to sit through ten horrible films to get ONE good one." I don't find that to be the case at all, but's let's accept your ratio for the sake of argument. Why should we not? Is every CD packed with revolutionary music of surpassing brilliance? No. Is every book outstanding? No. 90% of everything is junk, and I would include The Breakup in that 90%, but that's kind of the point. Nothing in that movie resonated with me. It felt forced, contrived, and artifical. Obviously, it connected with you in a way that it did not with me. So, is The Breakup shit or shinola? Maybe a bit of both, so I'll stay with my thesis: It's two entirely different things to say, "I don't find myself wanting to see many movies" versus "All movies except the ones I want to see are crap!"

Although I think we all can agree that anyone involved with the making of Deck the Halls should be punished. We must have some standards.

Posted by: apocalipstick at December 28, 2006 8:03 PM

Should have been more clear. I don't have to sit through ten bad films to find a good one; I can pretty find a good one and then go.

Posted by: apocalipstick at December 28, 2006 9:49 PM

oh, don't misunderstand. i know it read as though i was, but i actually don't consider the breakup to be a GOOD film. just saying, i enjoyed it.

and while your points are good, the question still stands - are movies that don't suck now actually suckless, or do they only seem that way because SO MANY of them do? i mean, when hollywood has to data mine 20-year-old TELEVISION shows (that were terrible 20 years ago AS television shows - e.g., the dukes of hazzard, miami vice, et al) for material, i think it's safe to say they're out of ideas.

you are right, for sure, about deck the halls.

(i'm surprised you didn't mention my nod to the wedding singer - another technically rotten flick that i happened to enjoy. OMG I HAVE ZERO CRED.)

Posted by: juliagulia at December 28, 2006 10:51 PM

juliagulia,

i mean, when hollywood has to data mine 20-year-old TELEVISION shows (that were terrible 20 years ago AS television shows - e.g., the dukes of hazzard, miami vice, et al) for material, i think it's safe to say they're out of ideas.

Or they're working in a system that rewards maximum profits above all else and believe that those properties are familiar and comforting to a certain audience. I have worked on a few no-budget indie films and it's frightening how hard and expensive it is to make any movie. I can only imagine the pressure of having $100 million riding on it. So what's a studio to do? How's about make some movies that are (literally) no-brainers, that will generate reliable profits with minimal risk. I'm part of the "Dukes of Hazzard" generation. When I was in college, we used to debate "What's the worst TV show of all time?" We had one ground rule: You couldn't call Charlie's Angels, CHIPS or Dukes. They were too easy; like beating up the special-needs kid for his lunch money. They sucked ass, but you know what? They all scored big ratings. Whenever one of these abominations is announced I groan, but then I'll run into a friend who's all excited because "Did you hear? They're gonna make a movie out of Fantasy Island!" The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves. In any capitalist system we will mostly get what the majority craves.

Posted by: apocalipstick at December 29, 2006 12:08 AM

In any capitalist system we will mostly get what the majority craves.

I think this point can be overblown. Sure, the vast majority of films will be for the mundane masses, but movies like Little Miss Sunshine have been making big bucks considering the size of their budgets so you know there will always be more in the works.
Niche marketing has become quite easy in the past decade or so. It's a wonderful time to have eccentric tastes.
Praise capitalism!

Posted by: mk at December 29, 2006 10:16 AM

Which is kind of my point. There are good films out there, but the attitude that Jerce put forth was "all films this year have been shit, until now, when Children of Men will rescue us." I would say that, yes, many, many craptacular feats of cinematic putrescence have been foisted 'pon us, but there have also been some good and fine films available for our consumption. Admitting that the majority of movies don't do it for me is not the same as saying "They all suck!"

Posted by: apocalipstick at December 29, 2006 10:39 AM

juliagulia,

"i mean, when hollywood has to data mine 20-year-old TELEVISION shows (that were terrible 20 years ago AS television shows - e.g., the dukes of hazzard, miami vice, et al) for material, i think it's safe to say they're out of ideas."

is it bad that I am completely pumped for "Fraggle Rock"?

anyways, I agree with the posters saying that Prisoner of Azkaban didn't suck. It was (finally) not necessarily aimed at kiddies, and the tone that Alfonso Cuarón set was excellent. I think he is a superb director, and have been counting down for this movie ever since my friend sent me a link to the trailer when it was first released.

although, that could be because I completely adore Clive Owen...and words cannot describe my love for Chiwetel Ejiofor. I think he is a highly underrated actor...I mean, you barely realize it's the same actor in Serenity, Kinky Boots, and Inside Man.

Posted by: KDM at December 29, 2006 1:58 PM

Slightly off topic maybe, but am I the only one who remembers that 'United 93' came out in 2006? I've heard/read so many discussions about this year in film, and it frequently gets left out. Why? I think it has the potential to be the type of film that helps to define a generation or a period of time in American life. Maybe that's a little over-the-top I guess, but I just get sad when so few people seem to talk about it anymore. Forgotten already? I hope not. Sorry, end of my rant.

Posted by: stacy at December 29, 2006 2:53 PM

I forgot to add - I love that these three Mexican directors (Cuaron, del Toro and Inarritu) are finding success on such a large stage. I think all three are hugely talented.

imk, you said you thought Cuaron is the best at "camera work" and cinematography. Credit the cinematographers too, then. Emmanuel Lubezki did 'Y Tu Mama Tambien' and 'Children of Men'. Michael Seresin did 'Prisoner of Azkaban'. They deserve just as much credit.

Posted by: stacy at December 29, 2006 3:00 PM

Nothing good in '06? What about The Departed, Thank You For Smoking, Little Miss Sunshine or United 93? And let's not forget An Inconvenient Truth - brilliant.

Sad that many people feel that most anything new stinks, and only old things are cool and worth anything. They have "character" and "integrity". Those things (films or otherwise) were once new, too.

Posted by: aah at December 31, 2006 6:51 PM

This was, in my opinion, the best book PD James ever wrote. SO relieved to find out the movie is good too!

Posted by: Mac at January 3, 2007 3:33 PM

For me it was all about the blood on the camera at the end. For some reason, that just blew me away. Amazing movie, and even though it's insanely difficult to watch, I will own this when it comes out on DVD.

Posted by: solaana at January 3, 2007 5:38 PM

Thank you for a thoughtful and insightful review of this MOST excellent movie of 2006. I am so happy to see this movie in wide release, and I so hope it reaches a large audience.

Posted by: debkakes at January 5, 2007 5:24 PM

A) I thought the movie was fantastic.

B) What's with the first comment/nitpick?
I'm not sure if he was trying to correct the author but if he was there is no such thing as letter-day. Latter-day is correct. Maybe he thought he read letter-day instead of latter-day and was trying to point out the incorrect-ness. Either way, he's wrong. And that annoys me.

Posted by: Leslie at January 6, 2007 3:04 AM

Wow. I kind of hated this movie. I saw it about a month ago -- it came out earlier in Europe -- and found it exceedingly heavy-handed.

I agree that the initial 20 minutes or so were good -- the explanation of the setting for the story was done really well, but basically from the second that the actual characters started interacting, I started not to like it. It just seemd to be trying way too hard.

The other thing that irritated me were the few things that the director threw in to be clever or something. Namely, the high-pitched tone that we heard at the beginning, and then a few other times, which was supposed to be what the main character was hearing due to being near an explosion, and the blood splatter on the camera towards the end of the film. If the entire film ahd been done with touches like this, it might've have been much more powerful and interesting, but when there were basically two of these events in the entire film. You can't make the film "real" for the first five minutes, and then forget about it completely for two hours, only to go "oh shit!" 10 minutes before the end and stick one other bit in real quick.

Posted by: shannon at January 6, 2007 9:46 AM

Mexican cinema's on the rise I tell you...! Cuaron is probably the best one of them...okay which one did Amores Perros, because you didn't mention it, and that's a fantastic film if you haven't seen it by now!

Posted by: Gina at January 6, 2007 11:10 AM

I found this movie utterly entrhalling. The characters were interesting, the story line didn't seem to have giant holes, the mix of humor, drama, action, grief, and terror was so refreshing and lifelike and I didn't walk out feeling I just got manipulated and coerced into caring for these characters. It was a great time out at the theater.

Posted by: romygirl at January 7, 2007 12:24 PM

It is the kind of movie that requires you to reach deep into yourself and pull out that hope. The one cheat is that if you are the person that can only find criticism for this movie, you either "refuse to recognize the future has arrived" or you do not care enough to hope.

Yes, the 'Dreadlocks' dood was weak, but the rest of the movie was phenom.

Posted by: Jackseppelin at January 8, 2007 1:23 AM

It seems that a couple of posters have read the book, but nobody seems to be commenting on how spectacularly the movie departs from the original novel. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I have read the book and the similarities between it and the description from this reviewer are mainly in the title and the fact that it is set in a future London where humans can no longer reproduce (oh, and some of the characters have the same names, although they seem to play entirely different roles from those they held in the book). Other than that it is so different as to depart altogether from P.D. James' original novel.

The most baffling example of this departure is the source of the infertility - in the book, it is the MEN who have become infertile, and this is central to both the story and the motives and behaviours of many male characters, not to mention EXPLAINING THE TITLE!! Making women infertile rather than men may create a more comfortable viewing experience for male members of the audience, but it renders the title of the film meaningless.

In the book there is no Kee - this character is made up for the film, and is not a creation of P.D. James. Theo is not Julian's ex-husband, but an elderly Oxford history professor who gets caught up with a very small fringe resistance group (only five people in total). Julian is the one that's pregnant, and her husband is Rolf, who ultimately betrays them all.

To top it all off, Theo (the 'aging historian' Theo from the book, not the 'ex-husband of the non-pregnant Julian' Theo of the movie) is not kidnapped - he goes willingly with this group when he finds out Julian is pregnant; in other words, this is a TOTALLY different story, and I can't see how any of these changes make the story better or more easily adapted to film.

I am not saying that the movie can't be good with all of these changes; I just think that people who are familiar with the book will find the movie puzzlingly unfamiliar - it has been changed far more than is usual for movies adapted from novels. From the sound of things, this isn't really the story P.D. James wrote anymore - not at all.

Posted by: expatmama at January 8, 2007 7:04 AM

I saw this movie Saturday. What a waste of time. Hope? This movie offered no hope. Characters? Cardboard cutouts could have done as well. Really couldn't bring myself to care about any of them, especially since (spoiler alert) just at the point when you might care about any of them, they were going to get killed.

This reaction could just be because I am so low-brow and expect a movie to have a plot and character development not just "art."

Posted by: Muphinsmom at January 8, 2007 10:55 AM

You people really need to try tripe before using it as a put-down.

Anyway, I saw the movie tonight, and it was the first time in a long time that a movie has put things into perspective for me like this one. I'll have to see '...Tambien' after seeing this.

Posted by: eli sarver at January 8, 2007 10:33 PM

The apparent fact that the movie so strongly diverges from the book just makes me think there really is something special going on here. Granted, I would be impaling mys movie soul with one of those spits from hell if the lead was someone like Jason Stratham. However, it does not seem like a simple manoevre to get the big English hunk a vehicle. (I did appreciate Theo never really becoming the action lad). It also, if not for being so unconventionally divergent, might make me want to check out the book. Even if most contemporary novels are a bunch of unwashed, brine-soaked tripe, this sounds good enough to give exception.

yeah, muphinmom, you do not care enough to have any hope, and that is sad. It sounds a little gay, but I squirted one at the end of the movie. When Theo was rushing up the stairs and searching for Chi, I felt sympathy for being that powerless. I felt hope despite being trammeled, as countermeasure to what forces actually exist.

Posted by: Jackseppelin at January 9, 2007 12:00 AM

Jackseppelin writes: "The apparent fact that the movie so strongly diverges from the book just makes me think there really is something special going on here."

This is an interesting comment - can you expound?

I wasn't really saying that the movie couldn't be special (as I said, I haven't seen it, and PD James' novel is not the only good story in the world, so I am sure a broad variation on her tale could make for fine viewing) - it's just that the plot summaries I have read indicate that it just isn't the same story any more. The premise (well, part of it anyway) and the character names are plucked out of the book, but otherwise it doesn't sound much like there is any real similarity at all, which I just found odd.

I would also love to hear the rationale for changing the premise so that it is the women who are fertile rather than the men - that is a HUGE change, and apart from not wanting to discomfit the male viewers, I can't think of a reason to make that change, especially when the title, so well-selected originally, becomes suddenly meaningless and, to be honest, pretty dumb, as it is not only men who are without children in this futuristic dystopia. Besides, assuming that men are so terribly sensitive that they can't handle such a suggestion in a premise, but that women can suck it up is ridiculous and insulting (to both men and women), especially when coming from a team which, by most accounts, has created a fine and thoughtful film.

Posted by: expatmama at January 9, 2007 2:30 AM

I saw this movie over the weekend with my husband. We both agreed that it was one of the best movies we've seen in a long time. While my husband had a hard time believing that the whole world could go to hell in a handbasket because people stopped being able to have children, I was instantly drawn into the story. It's depressing, raw, nervy, beautiful and uplifting. I haven't read the book, but it's on the top of my list.

Posted by: groanygirl at January 9, 2007 10:48 AM

Thanks, expatmama. I've been wondering why the film is called Children of Men if it's women who are infertile. This clears it up for me.

(Obviously, I haven't read the book. And I think I will do so in lieu of seeing the film.)

Posted by: juliagulia at January 9, 2007 7:38 PM

The topic of who's infertile isn't breached in the film, except for a description of a wave of miscarriages. People are hollering over something they've projected onto the movie.

Posted by: ranchoelguache at January 10, 2007 1:35 AM

ranchoelguache says:
"The topic of who's infertile isn't breached in the film, except for a description of a wave of miscarriages. People are hollering over something they've projected onto the movie."

It is said outright in the trailer, which was the first place I heard it - it wasn't just a review where the reviewer may have made an unsubstantiated assumption. In the trailer, the voiceover says, "...since women have stopped being able to have babies,what's left to hope for?"

That's pretty clear, really; I don't think that this is something people are 'projecting'.

Posted by: expatmama at January 10, 2007 6:05 AM

this was the worst fucking movie of the year, and that is saying something. when will you people stop thinking 1984 is just around the corner? do you all realize 1984 was based on a time and place far more similar to the soviet union than the modern west?
who would actually believe a character such as julianne moore plays, would be a terrorist leader? osama bin laden, saddam hussein, hamas, hezbollah, iran's president............and julianne moore???? how jaded and left wing do you have to be to believe that? all the crap in the review about how "frighteningly plausible" this movie is, says so much about your intelect. and why is it always england that "soldiers on?" V for vendetta and now this, are you kidding me? england will be the first modern nation to devolve into chaos if such a thing ever happened, which it won't. england has virtually no homegrown industry that any country wants to import, it depends totally on the EU for economic fuel and the US for protection. england soldiers on, get a fucking life. the only thing england is good at, is scaring the rest of the world into thinking global warming is man-made, and that there may be a lucrative industry, started by england that can solve all the worlds environmental problems. go ahead england, that one is all you, when the pound isn't even worth wiping your ass with it, come to America and we will show you how to be a Capitalist country. have a good life you bunch of left wing whack jobs!!

Posted by: matt at January 10, 2007 4:38 PM

matt, you sound like you'd kill for your idea. what is it, again? You shame yourself,
sir. Surely. I heard someone on IMDB wipe the page with the typical kinda of flamepost as your with the assertion that you are hating on the morals on the film, confused about when to take movies for granted. You're affectively blaming E.T. for the lack of a presence of aliens on this planet. Or Striptease for political sex scandals in general. Blame Rambo III for US occupation in Afghanistan. Blame 25th Hour for Bushing not liking black people. It's fun blaming movies for reality. You try some. You hate the morals and use the movie as an opportunity to spout your filthy passion. Whether or not you like this movie, you are not right in believing that you are insulated from a future in which hatred and fear are our primal motivations.

Global warming, whether man made or not, is real. Pollution does not disappear quickly enough to disregard our waste. Pigs do that. The pound is worth more than the dollar, as is the Chinese dollar. Jules Verne, Aldous Huxley, and George Orwell might be blamed for writing a piece of fiction that became a self-fulfilling prophecy; only that would be selective logic. Communism is not finished because we "won" the Cold War. It may appear that the US, though it's taking longer, also lost that one. I personally am not a fan of old England. I think we inherited much of the problems with our power structure from this maniacal entitlement bureaucracy--I will say that the newer generation from England are picking up some slack. They are not "geopolitically whupped", even if they are mostly concerned in self-preservation. Barring chemical and nuclear warfare, the UK does have an immensely advantageous geographic location. They are also much more involved in politics than does the average, often choleric, American.

I hope you have a good life too.

This movie does operate on several levels. It is an adaptation that never feels stilted. It examines the human condition. Despite its comment on squandering goodwill, this movie is well-intentioned. It turns out to be a film-noire; so you shouldn't be expecting Terminator 2, or even V for Vendetta. I LOVE both of those movies more because I agree with their morals more than I admire the film-making. Children of Men is so spectacularly aligned, it does not matter to me that I do not agree with all of the facts presented, or future foretold. I really liked Tambien and Azkahbahn, but this one is not in the same category as either of those. This one does examine the human condition, and in me at least, requires me to take action. It's never too late to turn everything around OR completely fuck everything over.

Posted by: Jackseppelin at January 10, 2007 6:33 PM

oh jackseppelin, please enlighten me some more. first i will give you this - i did not explain what i would do. i guess that's because i agree with our current strategy for the most part, and apparently understand the suttle nuances of psychological warfare in the 21st century. here is my idea: stop supporting film, books, anything that makes those who hate us and pray to allah for our death, emboldened by the message they try to get across. i'm not saying to censor them, just don't say things like, "best movie of the year" when you are basing that on its political message and not the actual movie.

ET, Striptease, Rambo3 - none of these movies were critiqued and lauded for their treatise on where the world will be if we do not fix our "evil" ways. they were good plotlines, that used current real world scenarios to tell a story. what lesson learned would one glean from rambo3? that soviet world domination is a bad thing? please, the amount of movies with that theme are near infinite. all of these are different than Children of Men (CofM). CofM is only being hailed as great and wonderful because it projects a future with the greatest and most unfounded fears of liberals everywhere realized in gritty, brilliantly shot detail. i wonder to which side of the political spectrum these critics lean......here's a hint, it's not to the right.

because of this, i feel someone must stand up and say, if only on this website, that THOSE critics are too jaded and biased to give any sort of objective critique. AND the fact that they support a movie that so plainly loathes anything American, that if i were an islamist, i would find much moral support and comfort. if only because i would see many of those in the west with an undeserved mouthpiece (anyone who thinks this movie resembles one iota of what the future will be) blasting and denigrating the leaders who are trying to keep them safe and kill me, the angry islamist.
global warming is 100% real. only an uneducated fool would think otherwise. at the same time, only a person with an equally low intelect would think that man has anything to do with it, even while they fly around the world spewing millions of SUV's worth of carbon into the atmosphere, telling us to drive hybrids and do our best to conserve energy. yes that would be you al gore, the 2006 hypocrite of the year. to borrow from a worn out phrase, its the SUN stupid. it is the god damn sun. do you think man, even if there were 10 billion of us on earth could in any way control or out heat the cycles of the sun on our planet. if you do, you weren't listening in science class when the teacher explained what stars are. to put it simply, they are fucking hot and fucking big. the equivalent energy of tens of thousands of thermonuclear warheads exploding is released off the sun every second. but you know what, if i drive a Prius, and be sure to not exhale (since the largest source of man-made carb on on the planet comes from humans exhaling carbon dioxide), maybe i can reverse the warming trend that has been in effect for the past 100 years.

i haven't even touched the ridiculous notions put forth in CofM regarding terrorism and illegal immigrants. but i will say this. if you think the US and Britain should let in illegal immigrants for whatever reason, you can do something about it.....let them live with you. i don't see the difference between opening your home to a stranger with no respect or knowledge of the law, or opening your border. if any left wing genius on here could explain that difference to me, i would gladly bow down to your wisdom.

and yes jackseppelin, you were right about one more thing. i do agree that the US is slowly losing the cold war, but not for the same reasons you do. communism did not disappear, it changed its name to socialism, made friends with the looniest elements of the democratic party, got george soros to give it all his money, bought out hollywood and 99% of journalists everywhere, and is slowly pecking away at the US. if you don't believe me, please research hugo chavez and iranian president ahmadinejad. who do those 2 remind you of? think mussolini and hitler.

i have said all i can say to make my points. for the record in case anyone reading this is stereotyping me based on what i said. i am a middle class white male. i am fiercely pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, a former christian turned deist, who does not agree with at least 50% of what President Bush believes. but he is the leader of the greatest nation on earth, and what he is doing in iraq, somolia, afghanistan, and anywhere else he has ordered radical islamists to be killed or captured, trumps everything else i disagree with him on. now how do you feel me?

Posted by: matt at January 11, 2007 1:00 AM

Ummm, wow matt. In what part of this movie did you see all this liberal agenda stuff? Isn't the liberal agenda to kill babies, which is the very opposite of this movie's message? Or could I be wrong? Didn't the terrorists ultimately show that they were self-serving opportunists who only wanted the baby to further their own goals, not to save mankind? Or am I still wrong? Didn't the brave soldiers near the end stop fighting, only for some terrorist asshole to hit them with a sucker punch? Or am I wrong? It seems you are projecting a an attitude on this movie that does not exist. Yes, there is mistreatment of refugees and immigrants (which is a whole other diatribe I won't go into here), but that is about the only so-called liberal political message I saw. Well, that and the pot smoking.

I am not trying to stereotype you, I am only going by what your complaints are about this movie, which is the only thing I can do. As I understand it, I don't think anyone wants humans to be infertile and extinct. If they do, their political affiliation is the last thing I would worry about.

I know that there are some idiots who think that disagreeing with the president means siding with the president, and I know they are on both sides. I literally wanted to knock out Harry Belefonte's dentures when he pulled his stunt with Chavez. But I cannot see where you get that same feeling of anti-American sentiment from this movie.

Would you prefer that is was America that survived? Is that it? That your real beef is that the good old USA wasn't the victor in this? These are not rhetorical; I really want to understand such anger at a movie, and you brought up the England survives issue. The only movies I have seen this year (or in a while, really) that had England dominant was this a V for Vendetta, and both show that this dominance came with a heavy price, leaving England ran by assholes pretty much. If anything, the idea of freedom fighting against the English would be pro-American, wouldn't it?

As far as your comment about Julienne Moore's character being a terrorist; aren't most terrorists just regular people who believe in something so strongly they were willing to kill and die for it? bin Laden and the others you mentioned, they are gloryhounds. They are not the ones who fly planes into buildings or blow themselves up, the regular people do that. Children do that. The bastards on your list are so not because of their religious beliefs, but because they warp them to convince normal people to die for some bullshit reason.

Iraq was a corrupt and dangerous place, yes; everyone knew that. Hell, the United States helped in that, and we needed to fix it. But the way it was done was sloppy, mismanaged, and worthless. That is my complaint with it; not that we are hunting these guys down, but that we are doing it is a way that flies in the face of reason, wisdom, and common sense. What is the point of the troops going over there if they can't do the job right?

But I am getting off topic: the movie and your issues with it. I must admit that I cannot see this as some piece of anti-American propaganda. From what I can read (and I can be wrong here), your issue is more with the critics than with the movie. If there are critics that only support this film because of some perceived support for their ridiculous views, then by all means, bitch about them. But don't blame the movie for the ideas they projected onto it, otherwise they win. They got you to see the movie in their context, not your own.

Posted by: Vermillion at January 11, 2007 11:59 AM

Sorry I posted my entry before I finished. My point is this: Hate the movie on it's own merits, not because some douchbag critics try to use it to reinforce their beliefs. Because if they need a FICTIONAL MOVIE to prop themselves up, how correct can they be?

Posted by: Vermillion at January 11, 2007 12:03 PM

I'd like to point out that the line Michael Caine says about women stop having babies is taken out of context in the trailer. In the movie, I never got the idea that it was all women's fault either. Neither sex is "blamed." All we know is that conception is not happening, so saying that the movie says that it's women who can't concieve is . . well, reading too much in between the lines.

Also, why is it so bad that Julliane Moore's character is labeled a "terrorist?" Everyone started going all "AHH the Muslims!!!" when Oklahoma City happened, and it turned out to be some white guy. So, why can't it be some white woman here?

Oh, and lastly, about the whole illegal immigration thing . . . the movie shows the inherent humanity of all people, not just "patriots." I'm not in favor of allowing illegal immigration, but there's a better way to deal with the problem then by shotting someone because they were born in a different part of the planet.
I was very impressed with a theme that ran through the movie, on both sides, that was never really stated. In a world where each human life has become more precious, why is life being treated with such loathing?

Posted by: Rowen at January 13, 2007 2:11 PM

Rowen says:

"I'd like to point out that the line Michael Caine says about women stop having babies is taken out of context in the trailer. In the movie, I never got the idea that it was all women's fault either. Neither sex is "blamed." All we know is that conception is not happening, so saying that the movie says that it's women who can't concieve is . . well, reading too much in between the lines."

You know, this is soon going to turn into one of those long arguments over a somewhat petty point, but the quote from Caine in the trailer is, "Why are women infertile?" HOW can this be out of context in any way that changes it from women being infertile??

In the book, the fact that men are infertile is a HUGE issue for the male characters. When it becomes clear that a woman is pregnant, the man who believes he is the father of her baby is aware that he will have a tremendous amount of power as the only fertile male and this drives the events in the book to a very great degree. If WOMEN were infertile and he was just one of innumerable fertile men, it changes everything!!

Including the title.

That's my point. It's a big deal in the book, and it was clearly changed for the movie. Even though I haven't seen the film it is very very clear just from the TRAILER that this change has been made and it's not just some collective figment of everybody's imagination but yours.

I promise to try to see it as soon as I can. I live in the Middle East and movies can take a while to get here.

Posted by: expatmama at January 13, 2007 2:38 PM

When I arrived home after watching this movie, I immediately went upstairs and lay down in bed beside my 4-year old son.

Powerful stuff.

Posted by: S.K. at January 14, 2007 12:47 AM

This movie was incredibly thought-provoking and well done. That being said, I also found it unbelievably depressing and had to come home and watch a rom-com to cheer myself up. For those of you who are considering seeing it AND still reading this board after the lengthy discussions above AND are on the emotionally sensitive side like myself, I would go see it at a matinee and plan to do something relaxing afterwards. Take with caution - but do see it as the questions it raises are of the utmost importance in the world that we do live in today. On a lighter note, as I was leaving the theater, I passed a pregnant woman on the street - and I couldn't stop staring at her belly!

Posted by: Rachel at January 14, 2007 1:28 AM

Expatmama

I'm not going to disagree with you about the difference between men and women being infertile. You're right. There is a big difference there, and I have never read the book, so have no basis to make any statements on the changes from it.

Anyway, Clive Owen's little monologue in the trailer wasn't in the movie, that I remember, and the interplay between Michael Caine and Clive Owen, which here is presented as a serious conversation, in the movie is part of Michael Caine telling a (somewhat crappy, imo) joke. See? It CAN be taken out of context.

Lastly, no matter what the trailers have said, or what you feel you will see, when I saw this movie, I did not feel that women were at "fault" for this "problem." That simply was not a theme of the movie. If that then changes it from the book . . well, I don't know. I tend to get pissed at movies that change the story around for no random reason (I'm looking at you, Peter Jackson) but I have nothing to compare this with at the moment.

Posted by: Rowen at January 14, 2007 10:52 AM

I have not read the book, either, nor did I see the trailer that references women being the infertile ones. However, I must agree with Rowen in that it is not explicitly stated which gender is infertile in the movie. I fully intend to read the book, though, as expatmama has provided an additional perspective that I find quite intriguing - and it explains the title of the movie. So thanks, expatmama !

Posted by: Daphne at January 14, 2007 9:10 PM

Okay, I know this is late, and no one will probably read it, but I just saw this last night and had to comment:

Those of you claiming that the movie does NOT put the infertility on women are incorrect. There is a short conversation between Theo and Marian (the woman with dreds) tells Theo about all the miscarriages she saw before there were no pregnancies at all.

This shows that there were fertilized eggs, which means that it couldn't have been the men who were infertile. If that was the case, there would have been no miscarriages because the eggs would not have been fertilized at all.

Now I feel better.

Posted by: Christine at January 17, 2007 9:25 AM

Dear Expatmama,

Have you ever heard of spoiler alert? Did it occur to you that people might be intrigued by the film and actually want to read the book? Shit. Now you've ruined it. Thanks. Really. Thanks alot.

Yours truly,

Kitty X

Posted by: Kitty X at January 18, 2007 11:08 AM

Kitty X --

Believe me, Expatmama left out considerable other differences between the book and the movie than the one that concerns you so much.

Fundamentally, in fact, one could easily read the James book as being far LESS optimistic than the film. You will still find the book to be a worthwhile read, although I believe, as others have mentioned, that the film is a fabulous piece of work (more so than the book).

Posted by: furd at January 18, 2007 12:26 PM

The reason that I see for changing the infertility from men to women is simply that male infertility is fairly easy to overcome - there is already a healthy supple of frozen semen in existence, and there is also the possibility of cloning. However, both of these things require the ability to carry a fetus to term; there is no substitute for a womb.

Posted by: Katie at January 18, 2007 2:48 PM

While it does change things a bit when it is men versus women who are infertile, and both create intriguing plot points, I do not believe this is where the title comes from... The phrase "children of men" appears in Psalm 90: "Lord, thou hast been our refuge: from one generation to another. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made: thou art G-d from everlasting, and world without end. Thou turnest man to destruction: again thou sayest, Come again, ye children of men. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday: Seeing that is past as a watch in the night." In my opinion this does not refer to which sex is infertile, but rather more a reference to the more religious overtones in the book (as opposed to the movie) and the dying out of mankind. In my opinion, in the book at least, the title refers more to our general turning away from G-d, and the infertility G-d's punishment for that refusal...

Posted by: La Femme Nikita at January 18, 2007 3:37 PM

I never read the book, so I am not sure how close the movie is to it. I had no idea what the movie was even about when I went to see it (I went only because my sister wanted to). However, I would have to say the movie was one of the most intriguing I have ever seen. However, I wanted to know the reasoning behind the infertility issue, and I never figured it out. Is it something explained more in detail in the book?

Posted by: lilmoomoo at January 18, 2007 8:14 PM

Expatmama wrote:

I would also love to hear the rationale for changing the premise so that it is the women who are fertile rather than the men - that is a HUGE change, and apart from not wanting to discomfit the male viewers

If women were still fertile, couldn't they still have new babies using frozen sperm? Cloning would also be an option if it were just men who were infertile. Did the book explain why these wouldn't work? If not, maybe the movie changed it to avoid a plot hole that all the science fiction nerds would point out.

Posted by: Jesse M. at January 18, 2007 10:06 PM

best in theatre experience since Trainspotting. i see the blade runner DNA in it, but if you notice it owes a bit to Terminator.

(please to to ignore T3!)

ps> Comparing COM to Brick to this is not an option.

Posted by: thedarksider at January 18, 2007 10:57 PM

"AND the fact that they support a movie that so plainly loathes anything American, that if i were an islamist, i would find much moral support and comfort." - Matt.

How the hell do you get the idea that this movie loathes anything American? Have you seen it. Other than one moment where New York is among many other cities throughout the world shown burning in chaos, America isn't mentioned once.

Posted by: Joe at January 19, 2007 10:37 PM

Jesse M. wrote:

"If women were still fertile, couldn't they still have new babies using frozen sperm? Cloning would also be an option if it were just men who were infertile. Did the book explain why these wouldn't work? If not, maybe the movie changed it to avoid a plot hole that all the science fiction nerds would point out."

It does address this, and other possible solutions, quite thoroughly. I won't address them here, though, as I don't want to attract any more criticism for spoilers...

Posted by: expatmama at January 20, 2007 10:42 AM

What happens in the end after she's there floating in the little boat?

Posted by: Angela at January 20, 2007 7:09 PM

expatmama, when the book addresses cloning/frozen sperm, does it do so in a way that suggests the possibility of a natural explanation like a virus, or is pretty clear that something supernatural is going on? It doesn't seem completely outside the realm of possibility to imagine a biological agent which would cause the uterus of women to become inhospitable to embryos, but it's a lot harder to imagine a natural phenomena which would separately attack male testes, frozen sperm, and egg cells with a new nucleus inserted as is done in cloning. Some summaries of the book seemed to suggest that the infertility was clearly meant as a judgment from God, maybe the filmmakers just wanted it to be more ambiguous.

Posted by: Jesse M. at January 20, 2007 8:08 PM

**Note: This post contains spoilers marked below.**

There are other reasons, and rather simple reasons, why the filmmakers would choose to have women infertile instead of men. One significant factor in choosing which sex was infertile is the connection between that character and hope. The one fertile character (whatever sex he/she may be) would be more important to the hope of humanity than anyone else (even the child born, perhaps, but that is debatable). That any person is able to overcome the infertility of their sex to reproduce is amazing, and perhaps a sign of whatever you want to believe is going on here. I believe someone mentioned the power the fertile male had in the book. **Here is a spoiler** The movie, however, presents a girl who slept with many men, any of whom could have been the father. We couldn't exactly have a nameless fertile man running around out of the picture when so much of the movie and its characters revolve around the issue of hope.

The question of sex-based infertility now leads to why the filmmakers chose to focus on a young fertile pregnant woman instead of a fertile man and his pregnant mate (a total restructuring from the book, I assume). Perhaps it would be easier to have the audience identify hope with one character instead of two (or three when you count the child).

I obviously have no idea why the filmmakers choose to change so much of the story from the book. But I have always supported the need for people to take one story and make it their own, and the inspiration one story or situation might spark in a creative mind. (Also, I just realized that I only came up with one simple reason why they chose infertile females over males, but I am sure there are more.)

Posted by: Nanook at January 23, 2007 2:03 AM

... Also, I loved the Pink Floyd reference!! Just too perfect to connect Animals (Pigs, especially) to that film at that moment.

Posted by: Nanook at January 23, 2007 2:14 AM

expatmama said, in answer to my question about frozen sperm/cloning,

It does address this, and other possible solutions, quite thoroughly.

I've just read the book, and I think her memory is off--there was just one sentence about frozen sperm which mentioned that it had lost its potency, and no mention of other solutions such as cloning. I liked the book very much, but it was hard to take the loss of fertility as anything but supernatural (the theme of religion was woven throughout the book), so as I said, one reason for the filmmakers to change it may have been to leave the cause more ambiguous, and to make the story less religious in theme.

Posted by: Jesse M. at January 27, 2007 8:06 PM

Someone had mentioned earlier that in the book the men were infertile and without this detail the entire title is irrelvent? Well, I think that is utterly false. I think it is more of a reference to the bible (the bible often mentions "mankind" which represents "Human kind"). I think it made way more sense for the females to be infertile and, in fact, reminds me of the story of Pandora. Pandora (made by Zeus) was sent to Earth with a large vase like thing (something they use to store items) and was sent to marry Epimetheus. She opens the vase and releases all of the evil things (death, sickness, constant work...etc) but leaves Hope. To some, the entire story represents the female body (the vase is the womans womb and the hope is the child within). All the evil is released, but the womb remains...representing hope. And, like this myth, women are the beginning of evil (they are infertile) and then, eventually, the beginning of hope (Kee becomes pregnant). I find it all very allegorical and symbolic! I really enjoyed it.

Posted by: Ophelia at February 1, 2007 5:28 PM

Way overrated in my opinion.
I wanted to love it but I just didn't.

Posted by: Mrs.Kravitz at May 3, 2007 4:47 PM

Yeah. I definitely agree with Mrs.Kravitz. And the ending was really disappointing. I downloaded the movie and when I saw the ending I wondered if the file had missing parts. This film had waaaay too much hype.

Posted by: Dee at May 7, 2007 3:13 PM

Thank god for Mrs. Kravitz and Dee. I really really REALLY wanted to like it and just spent a good while arguing with a friend who did like it, trying to find somewhere that I was wrong or didn't see something that would change my mind. But no. Didn't completely suck, but I definitely wasn't a fan.

Posted by: Noxbu at May 18, 2007 6:19 PM

Must be a trend right now, b/c I didn't care for the movie either, and that really disappointed me b/c I thought I would love it. But it just didn't affect me the way I thought it would. For starters, all the main characters are killed, and the last half hour just felt like I was watching any other war film (although I know this was not a war movie). Bombs going off, innocent people getting picked off by the dozens...ho hum. Nothing I haven't seen before.

The only thing that really touched me was when Kee and Theo were allowed to leave the prison building near the end, and everyone sees the baby for the first time. Soldiers crossing themselves, women struggling just to touch the baby's feet...now that WAS powerful. It really hit then me then of the significance of her birth. But the ending left me cold. It just cut away and I was like "That's it?" I'm glad I saw it because I wanted to see what the hype was about, but ultimately, I was disappointed.

Posted by: Brie at May 30, 2007 2:03 PM